Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chip McVickar who wrote (3116)	6/10/2015 12:06:30 PM
From: Kirk ©	1 Recommendation Recommended By 3bar Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26710

Interesting chart here. I'd be curious to get your thoughts. I'm long and got more long yesterday with a fairly good buy signal for a rally that I believe will run several weeks... We can still have large gains just following the upper tine higher but I think what we're seeing is a rotation to growth Interesting that the Russell has followed the same pitchfork... Maybe I should do these over with log scales... also, they don't show returns with reinvested dividends so they understate actual returns. Thanks in advance!

To: Chip McVickar who wrote (3116)	6/11/2015 10:58:30 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26710

Glad you are well. I'm doing so well it makes me want to knock on my wooden head for luck to counter mentioning it. Doing Fine Kirk... Thanks for asking Hope you are as well... Here is the Andrew's Pitchforks for the Russell 2000 on a log scale. I believe it was you who pointed this very useful chart technique out to me many moons ago, so I'll always be grateful. It just blows me away how the orange pitchfork back to 1991 still seems in play. I really wish I had stock charts back to the 1987 low for complete charts. This DOW one is what I think shows what will happen when the bubble from nearly unlimited global QE and low rates is measured as real inflation... prices we see for water, food, homes in anyplace there are decent jobs, etc.... To me, it seems the government still averages inflation data in places few want to live, such as bankrupt Detroit or dangerous Baltimore, with cities so packed the poor are being pushed out such as the San Francisco bay area.... one of my yoga instructors, a stay-at-home mom, is leaving for central CA (Tracy) so they can buy a house "we don't have $1M to buy a small place" and her husband will have an awful 2 hr commute... I think if they measured inflation as a bimodal variable, then we'd see that it is super high anywhere there are jobs and great weather but the AVERAGE is quite low due to so many stuck in awful places to live where the super smart don't want to start tech companies and the VCs don't want to live.